Advertisement

Heidegger and Modern Science: Responding to Ontological Communication in the Anthropocene Epoch

  • Deepak PandiarajEmail author
Article
  • 6 Downloads

Abstract

Martin Heidegger’s writings on modern science as well as his stray remarks on communication are important theoretical resources to understand the character and contour of, and our response to the Anthropocene epoch. John Caputo distinguishes between the early hermeneutic account of science in Heidegger’s corpus and the later deconstructive account, claiming that the former would have sufficed to fulfil the critical task of the latter without its pejorative and dismissive reading of modern science. Accepting Caputo’s distinction but rejecting his critique of the deconstructive account, this paper argues that Heidegger’s abandoning of the hermeneutic account was premised on the refusal of the Western metaphysical baggage that still pervades and is endorsed in that account, a baggage which is now leading to the Anthropocene epoch and the consequent ontological communication of distress. The deconstructive approach evokes the communication of scientific phenomena in plural ways such as fictional, poetical and metaphorical narratives, thus undercutting the reductionist and monolithic character of modern science.

Keywords

Communication Modern science Hermeneutic Deconstructive Anthropocene Pluralism 

Notes

Funding

Funding was provided by UGC (University Grants Commission), India (3023/(NET-DEC.2012)).

References

  1. Blond, L. P. (2010). Heidegger and Nietzsche: Overcoming metaphysics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  2. Bokulich, A. (2016). Fiction as vehicle for truth: Moving beyond the ontic conception. The Monist.  https://doi.org/10.1093/monist/onw004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Caputo, J. D. (2012). Heidegger’s philosophy of science: The two essences of science. In T. Glazebrook (Ed.), Heidegger on science (pp. 261–280). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  4. Carson, C. (2010). Science as instrumental reason: Heidegger, Habermas and Heisenberg. Continental Philosophy Review.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-009-9124-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chakrabarty, D. (2009). The climate of history: Four theses. Critical Inquiry.  https://doi.org/10.1086/596640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, T. (2015). Ecocriticism on the edge: The Anthropocene as a threshold concept. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  7. George, S. K. (2015). Heidegger and development in the global south. New Delhi: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. George, S. K. (2016). Agency as response: A Heideggerian account. The Humanistic Psychologist, 44(4), 327–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glazebrook, T. (2000). Heidegger’s philosophy of science. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Haar, M. (1993). Heidegger and the essence of man (1990) (W. McNeill, Trans.). Albany, NY: The State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  11. Heidegger, M. (1956). What is philosophy? (1955) (J. T. Wilde & W. Kluback, Trans.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  12. Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time (1927) (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  13. Heidegger, M. (1967). What is a thing? (193536) (W. B. Barton Jr. & V. Detrtsch, Trans.). South Bend, IN: Gateway Editions.Google Scholar
  14. Heidegger, M. (1968). What is called thinking? (1951) (F. D. Wieck & J. G. Gray, Trans.). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  15. Heidegger, M. (1969). The principle of identity (1957) (J. Stambaugh, Trans.). In Identity and difference (pp. 23–41). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  16. Heidegger, M. (1972a). The end of philosophy and the task of thinking (1964) (J. Stambaugh, Trans.). In On time and being (pp. 55–73). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  17. Heidegger, M. (1972b). Time and being (1962) (J. Stambaugh, Trans.). In On time and being (pp. 1–54). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  18. Heidegger, M. (1973). Overcoming metaphysics (1936–46) (J. Stambaugh, Trans.). In The end of philosophy (pp. 84–110). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  19. Heidegger, M. (1977a). Science and reflection (1954) (W. Lovitt, Trans.). In The question concerning technology and other essays (pp. 155–182). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  20. Heidegger, M. (1977b). The question concerning technology (1949) (W. Lovitt, Trans.). In The question concerning technology and other essays (pp. 1–35). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  21. Heidegger, M. (1982). Nihilism as determined by the history of being (1944–46) (F. A. Capuzzi, Trans.). In Nietzsche IV (pp. 197–250). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  22. Heidegger, M. (1998). Letter on ‘humanism’ (1946) (F. A. Capuzzi, Trans.). In Pathmarks (pp. 239–276). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Heidegger, M. (2000). Introduction to metaphysics (1935) (G. Fried & R. Polt, Trans.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Heidegger, M. (2002a). The age of the world picture (1938) (Ed & J. Young & K. Haynes, Trans.). In Off the beaten track (pp. 57–85). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Heidegger, M. (2002b). The origin of the work of art (1935) (Ed & J. Young & K. Haynes, Trans.). In Off the beaten track (pp. 1–56). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Heidegger, M. (2012). Contributions to the philosophy (of the event) (193638) (R. Rojcewicz & D. Vallega-Neu, Trans.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Ihde, D. (2010). Heidegger’s technologies: Postphenomenological perspectives. New York: Fordham University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Irwin, R. (2010). Climate change and Heidegger’s philosophy of science. Essays in Philosophy, 11(1), 16–30.Google Scholar
  29. Kisiel, T. (1977). Heidegger and the new images of science. Research in Phenomenology, 7(1), 162–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kiverstein, J. (2012). What is Heideggerian cognitive science? In J. Kiverstein & M. Wheeler (Eds.), Heidegger and cognitive science (pp. 1–61). London: Palgrave-Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kompridis, N. (2006). Critique and disclosure: Critical theory between past and future. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ma, L., & Brakel, J. V. (2014). Heidegger and the reversed order of science and technology. In B. Babich & D. Ginev (Eds.), The multidimensionality of hermeneutic phenomenology (pp. 183–205). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Morton, T. (2018). Being ecological. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ICPR 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Humanities and Social Sciences DepartmentIndian Institute of Technology – BombayPowai, MumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations